[FrancesHinden]

 gartinmale, on 2013-January-11, 17:36, said:

I have it from Mike Flader that that is not a legal agreement or discussion, just like you can't promise you won't psych against beginners.

 lalldonn, on 2013-January-11, 18:30, said:

That is obviously untrue, whether or not Mike Flader says it is, any more than if your partner has promised they won't open a weak two bid with a side four-card major. I mean I'm just loling at that statement, sorry. It's like saying you can't agree to always have your bid.As for the rest of what you say, only if killing yourself in the auction is logical alternative suggested by the UI, or something close to that. LOGICAL alternative, not BARELY CONCEIVABLE WITHIN THE REALM OF THE UNIVERSE alternative.

The point is that a psyche is, by definition, a violation of partnership agreement. So to say you have "an agreement not to psyche" is logically completely meaningless.
You may know from partnership experience that your partnership has never psyched yet, but that's not the same thing. It does however affect your LAs in some of these UI positions.

[gartinmale]

 gnasher, on 2013-January-12, 14:51, said:

Arguably that's against the rules of most jurisdictions. In the ACBL, for example, you're "expected to play each hand to win at all times".

Well, yeah, but only when it doesn't come up against ethics, right? Otherwise, people would just ignore all the ethical trapping and then let the director sort every hand out (I know PPs are supposed to deal with this idea, but I have never seen a PP given out in my district, even though I have seen (different) people swear repeatedly and offensively at their partners and teammates, accuse my teammates of cheating, challenge my teammates to a physical fight, throw a chair, and throw their convention card and pens across the room towards other tables). I have seen them given out at nationals, but sadly nationals are only three times a year.

So in the rare but not once-in-a-blue-moon situations where I think ethics comes into it, I move the ethics part above the "play to win" part. My opponents might get a 100% board instead of an 80% board; it's worth it for me to be able to sleep at night and to deter similar situations that keep me from playing to win at all times from happening in the future.

I'm willing to talk about this more, because I think there's a fine line. I've also noticed I play better when I concentrate really hard on every hand, but that sometimes leaves me with an unpleasant headache. Actually (not being sarcastic) curious how that goes with "expected to play to win", too. My guess is that I'm supposed to get better enough at bridge that I can do the concentrating without the headache at the end of it.

[aguahombre]

Two points in general, not specific to this case:

I find, MartinMale, that the headaches come from concentrating on trying to concentrate.

Playing to win is required; it implies playing to win within the rules. If you consider what you are doing while trying to be ethical to be "dumping", you are not complying with the rules. However, if you proceed to a ridiculous result because you are following AI and ignoring UI, that (IMO) is not deliberately dumping.

Maybe, just maybe, what you think u have in the form of UI is all wrong ---and following your real agreements to the logical conclusion will turn out to be playing winning Bridge on the given hand.

[JLOGIC]

edit: whatever

[blackshoe]

 gartinmale, on 2013-January-13, 12:09, said:

My guess is that I'm supposed to get better enough at bridge that I can do the concentrating without the headache at the end of it.

If you keep at it, the headaches do eventually go away.

[gartinmale]

 aguahombre, on 2013-January-13, 12:30, said:

Two points in general, not specific to this case:

I find, MartinMale, that the headaches come from concentrating on trying to concentrate.

Playing to win is required; it implies playing to win within the rules. If you consider what you are doing while trying to be ethical to be "dumping", you are not complying with the rules. However, if you proceed to a ridiculous result because you are following AI and ignoring UI, that (IMO) is not deliberately dumping.

Maybe, just maybe, what you think u have in the form of UI is all wrong ---and following your real agreements to the logical conclusion will turn out to be playing winning Bridge on the given hand.

Hence the repeated use of 'logical alternative'. I'm willing to admit I draw really hard lines on this, but at no point do I say "I think it's 100% from AI that I can wake up and play bridge now, but I'm not going to do it". I like to think I play within your second-to-last sentence. I'll admit what I consider "logical" may be different from what others consider "logical". I don't really think that's dumping, I think it just means I'm willing to believe partner psyched and the opponents are insane before I'm willing to believe partner forgot an agreement. If partner forgets an agreement, we probably shouldn't be playing it.

My name isn't Martin.

[aguahombre]

sorry, Gartin, about the typo. I was agreeing with your position for the most part, and disagreeing with others who suggest your position is "not trying to win".

[iviehoff]

 Trinidad, on 2013-January-11, 16:52, said:

So, my order of priorities is:
Could this strange bid possibly have any meaning that is consistent with the start of the auction?
If so, I will assume partner meant to convey that meaning.
If not, then we have a misunderstanding. Psyches are not in my field of view.

Indeed if in fact partner did have a psyche and I correctly diagnosed that from his unexpected bid when there are other plausible explanations, I think that would be illegal too.

There is another possibility, which is different from a misunderstanding or a psyche, which is that partner made a mistake. I say that this is different from a misunderstanding, because mistakes include miscalculations from correct understandings, and things like inadvertently making the wrong bid and not being in time to correct it.

If partner passes my 2D unlimited transfer to hearts, it is a much more likely explanation that partner made some kind of error than that he actually holds diamonds. Fielding misbids can also be a CPU problematic. But it has to be either a mistake or a psyche, since there really is no sane reason for passing an unbounded weak-to-very-strong transfer if you have even a deviant 1N opening bid. I think misbid is the more ethical diagnosis, especially in fact if partner is known to psyche from time to time, so I really can't field his psyches unless they are completely exposed to view. If in fact it is me who made the mistake, and I can know this from UI, then the UI bars me from waking up to that error. So, unless I really am behind screens, I feel ethically bound to act on the assumption that partner made the mistake, not me.

That is the advantage of screens - you don't have the UI and are not constrained from making the "balance of probability" diagnosis. But if you don't have the screens, you have the UI and are constrained, and cannot necessarily take the same action you could behind screens. With screens, I am allowed to wake up to my error, or decide my error is the most likely explanation.

[blackshoe]

 iviehoff, on 2013-January-14, 10:27, said:

Indeed if in fact partner did have a psyche and I correctly diagnosed that from his unexpected bid when there are other plausible explanations, I think that would be illegal too.

Actually, while your correct diagnosis may not actually be illegal (not being based on a CPU), it will probably be presumed to be iilegal, IOW that you do have a CPU. In such a case, even if you don't have a CPU (or maybe especially if you don't) you'll have a hard time proving it convincing the TD not to rule against you.

[aguahombre]

 iviehoff, on 2013-January-14, 10:27, said:

Indeed if in fact partner did have a psyche and I correctly diagnosed that from his unexpected bid when there are other plausible explanations, I think that would be illegal too.

 blackshoe, on 2013-January-14, 15:38, said:

Actually, while your correct diagnosis may not actually be illegal (not being based on a CPU), it will probably be presumed to be iilegal, IOW that you do have a CPU. In such a case, even if you don't have a CPU (or maybe especially if you don't) you'll have a hard time proving it convincing the TD not to rule against you.

I understand what both of you are trying to say, but allow me a bit of childish payback for being taken to task in the past:

Diagnoses are not ruled upon. They are rationale for actions which might be ruled upon. A distinction without a difference

[blackshoe]

 aguahombre, on 2013-January-14, 16:15, said:

allow me a bit of childish payback

Um, no. Go to your room.

[bluejak]

 gartinmale, on 2013-January-11, 17:36, said:

I don't think that way. I try to handle these things as if it were behind screens, but if I perceive I have more than one logical alternative to a call I err heavily on the side of making sure my side gets a ridiculously bad result, because I think that is the most positive EV in the long run with respect to 'number of times my partnerships forget their conventions', and I think when we forget our conventions we should be punished.

 gnasher, on 2013-January-12, 14:51, said:

Arguably that's against the rules of most jurisdictions. In the ACBL, for example, you're "expected to play each hand to win at all times".

It may be against ACBL rules, which are poorly thought out and not followed, but I do not think it is against the rules of other jurisdictions. Nowhere else that I know makes you try to win each board. So if gartinmale thinks educating his partner will improve their overall result, I think that is illegal in the ACBL, legal elsewhere.

[Vampyr]

 bluejak, on 2013-January-27, 14:08, said:

So if gartinmale thinks educating his partner will improve their overall result, I think that is illegal in the ACBL, legal elsewhere.

It seems to me that his tactics are more likely to convert partners into ex-partners.

[bluejak]

I am only interested in legality, which is what this forum seems to be about. Whether it is good or bad is of no interest to me.

[gartinmale]

Hasn't happened yet. But we all forget our agreements less frequently...

Edit: my partners are encouraged to do the same thing (but of course, only selecting from what they genuinely perceive to be logical alternatives, as do I). What I'm trying to get at is that I often find there is a call that I think is a logical alternative that will work out really poorly, and then I take that one. Others may not actually come up with the same logical alternatives that I do; that's fine, I'm not judging anyone but myself and I don't have to live with anyone but myself.

I once played a session with a partner who got annoyed at himself over a minor error and deliberately swung (complete top-or-bottom) the next 12 boards. We finished the session with a 29%. I am not exaggerating when I say that I would rather play with him (and still do, although I had a careful conversation after he had calmed down to try to discover if he was not 'trying to win') than with someone who more than once in a blue moon forgets an agreement.

 Vampyr, on 2013-January-27, 14:31, said:

It seems to me that his tactics are more likely to convert partners into ex-partners.

[aguahombre]

Gartinmale: I believe that when a player is trying to do the right thing from among logical aleternatives he should select the call suggested by the AI avaiable and avoid L.A.'s which could have been suggested by UI. That might, in fact, be the call which will give us the worst possible result ---and we might know it at the time. HOWEVER:

That is not the same as looking for the worst scenario and making sure it happens.

[gartinmale]

 aguahombre, on 2013-January-31, 12:50, said:

Gartinmale: I believe that when a player is trying to do the right thing from among logical aleternatives he should select the call suggested by the AI avaiable and avoid L.A.'s which could have been suggested by UI. That might, in fact, be the call which will give us the worst possible result ---and we might know it at the time. HOWEVER:

That is not the same as looking for the worst scenario and making sure it happens.

No, and when I can accurately rank LAs at the table by "percent suggested by UI" in some manner other than "likely outcome" I'll get back to you. But if I consider options A, B, and C to all be LAs, and C definitely will lead to the worst result, I believe it is both best for the partnership in the long run and most ethically sound to pick C. And I don't accept that it falls into the pit of 'not trying to win the board'. I am always choosing something that I think will be a logical alternative, and I am trying to choose the one that is least suggested by the UI - if I know C hugely increases the chances I will go for 1100 on a partscore hand, it can't possibly be more suggested by the UI than A or B where I may end up +50, may end up -150, may end up -500, etc.

The law doesn't prohibit players from being idiots, and I'm perfectly capable of being an idiot without UI. If something is an LA, it's an LA. It means I or one of my peers might actually choose it, without any malicious intent.

[gartinmale]

To try to give an extreme example: suppose partner opens 1♠ and I hold

AQJx
AKQ
AKQx
xx.

I bid 2♣, which in our agreements is a game-forcing spade raise with 4+ pieces, but partner has forgotten, because he normally plays that 2♣ is natural, forcing one round, and game-forcing unless the suit is rebid or spades are raised.

Partner doesn't alert and rebids 2♠.

Certainly there are a number of bids one might make here. 3♦ cue, 4NT Blackwood, 3♠ demanding a cue all seem like possibilities. The last one will work out poorly when partner passes it.

But I would absolutely feel ethically compelled to consider bidding 3♣, which partner is also almost certainly going to pass, likely missing our cold slam or grand and not even playing in the right strain. Why is 3♣ a LA to whatever other bids? Well, I've psyched a cuebid before. This seems like an idiotic time to do that, but I'm certainly capable of being an idiot. How do I know I wouldn't have the urge to do that now if there was no UI from the lack of alert? I don't.

If I went down this road I would try to consider if there were other LAs that might be even less suggested than 3♣.

There are benefits to playing 3♣ here when cold for 7NT. We are less likely to forget our methods in the future, and I get to sleep soundly at night.

[blackshoe]

 gartinmale, on 2013-January-31, 15:44, said:

But I would absolutely feel ethically compelled to consider bidding 3♣, which partner is also almost certainly going to pass, likely missing our cold slam or grand and not even playing in the right strain. Why is 3♣ a LA to whatever other bids? Well, I've psyched a cuebid before. This seems like an idiotic time to do that, but I'm certainly capable of being an idiot. How do I know I wouldn't have the urge to do that now if there was no UI from the lack of alert? I don't.

This is going entirely too far, IMO.

[gartinmale]

Yes, but this forum is the only place in the world I know where I can get insight into this (besides with my similarly-inclined friends and partners). There's nowhere else like it. I think the ethical/philosophical parts of bridge are incredibly interesting, almost as much as the play.

I emailed this problem to a friend of mine asking what bids he would even briefly consider (with all alerts, so not posed as a UI problem), and he replied 3D cue, 3S demanding a cue, 4NT Blackwood, 5C psych exclusion. I may be completely insane but I am not alone.

I thought about mentioning 5♣ exclusion as well, but the problem is that they may double you in 5♣, and then you will get out of it.

 blackshoe, on 2013-January-31, 16:06, said:

This is going entirely too far, IMO.